The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

charliepanayi

charliepanayi

Paladin
Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
1,306
Age
42
Location
London, UK
Gil
1
So what do we think?

I felt it was too long and a bit too weighed down by exposition, but I did really enjoy the final third (everything from the stone giants through to the end anyway). The Bilbo/Gollum stuff was easily the highlight of the film, just reminded me what a great character Gollum is. So not Lord of the Rings, but definitely not The Phantom Menace either. Of course expanding it to three films feels like a mistake, but I look forward to Smaug next time round.
 
i think it was a tad too long, but i don't seem to hate that about it as much as everyone else. i could sort of see what peter jackson had added to help stretch it out to three films. i could also see things that needed added to it though - especially the eagles. in the book i'm pretty sure there was a bit of a chat with the eagles after they had rescued them all.

i couldn't stand the trolls at all, i was very strongly reminded of the three stooges. i thought the mountain giants were thrown in out of nowhere as well, and they were only included to make it a little more cinematic.

i 100% agree that the gollum/bilbo scene stole the show for me. gollum had some excellent lines and there was a good bit of awkward chemistry between the two of them. martin freeman is also a brilliant bilbo, you can really believe that he will grow up to become ian holm (who i thought looked really odd in the opening of it).

i plan on seeing it again, possibly in hfr so i can see how it holds up
 
I thought he looked odd too! there was something not quite right and I cant seem to put my finger on it!

I thought it was amazing me though, the singy bit at the start made me cringe abit but other than that it was pretty much non stop fighting, which is always guaranteed to keep me happy
 
I saw it last night. While it was a bit long, it really didn't feel that way to me. I haven't actually read the Hobbit, but I do plan to eventually. Martin Freeman was perfect for the role and I found the movie to be quite enjoyable. Three movies for the Hobbit seems a bit overkill, though, but I'm excited for the next two.
 
Did Ian Holm maybe look odd at the start because they were trying to make him look the same age he was in Fellowship, which was over a decade ago now.
 
I think so. Probably would've been better to have him telling it after LotR ended just because it seems that's how he was telling it.
 
The only thing preventing me from seeing it right away is the reviews...

I will eventually see it considering a lot of people really liked it, but the length of the movie is also putting me off :(

What should I do? See it or wait and rent it?
 
i always think massive films like this should be seen in the cinema on the big screen.

my main problem with ian holm was that he looks much chubbier in the face now compared when they filmed the fellowship, and his hair is a lot thinner. i know there's been a decade between the films and there's not really anything that can be done about it, and it definitely wasn't a massive bother for me.

i was very surprised at how well christopher lee looked in it. i saw him at the baftas a couple of years ago and he was really starting to look his age - very frail. in the hobbit he looks like he's 10 years younger than he was in lord of the rings, if anything.
 
Did anyone happen to see it in 48 FPS? I've seen bits and pieces of movies shown in higher frames (and it looks kind of strange tbh) but never watched all the way through.
 
i might rewatch it in hfr to see how it compares. i've heard very iffy things about it, like it makes cgi look very cheap and obvious. that sort of makes sense, and i think if 48fps becomes more popular then it will force digital animation in films to improve vastly.
i've heard that the 3d looks amazing in the higher frame rate though
 
I agree it was slow in the beginning but at the end of it, I really did quite enjoy it ;_; I really need to reread the book again. And also LOTR. I love this series so much dfskldfjds

Draklor said:
Did anyone happen to see it in 48 FPS? I've seen bits and pieces of movies shown in higher frames (and it looks kind of strange tbh) but never watched all the way through.
Click to expand...

I saw it in 48 FPS!

Don't get me wrong, it's REALLY super pretty. It's just... I don't really like it that much. It feels really trippy. Especially during certain parts. I mean I did get use to it after a while, but still. Think I prefer regular myself. xD It was fantastic in 3D though. For once it actually didn't bother my eyes. I would definitely recommend seeing it once in 48 FPS if you can. Just because of how great everything looks, even if it is a lil weird.
 
I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan and I believe that Peter Jackson did a fantastic job with the books. Consequently, I had hoped he'd do the same tremendous transformation with The Hobbit. Unfortunately, I found the film to be a little tedious. :sad3:

Peter Jackson should have covered half the book in 2 hours 45 minutes OR should have cut this movie so that it was only 2 hours. I was ready to leave after 2 hours because the film lacked pace and tension. :/ The acting was fantastic; the CGI was effective; the scenery was breath-taking; the music was mostly from LotR, but I enjoyed that; some of the ideas (like thunder giants) were great; the script was...well, not as funny as it wanted to be, and far too long-winded.

The way Peter Jackson has cut this makes An Unexpected Journey feel like the draft form of The Fellowship of the Ring. It follows the same basic plot. >.<
 
I saw it in 48 FPS. During the first few seconds I thought it was the most amazing film I'd ever seen visually. But as it progressed it seemed a bit weird. Tbh, I thought the HFR made the sets and costumes look cheap. The costumes looked like costumes and I think the makeup etc was more obvious (though I can't completely remember tbh) kind of like a low budget daytime TV show. Also, I'm not sure if this was due to the HFR but some scenes felt unnaturally fast like they were slightly sped up; particularly the scene at the beginning with Gandalf and Bilbo. This made the acting seem unnatural in some parts.

In terms of story etc.. I thought it was a bit too childish. While the Hobbit is meant to be more childish than lotr, I think Jackson went a bit overboard. I mean, Bilbo and co were falling 50 metres banging against rocks with no real injury which just seems weird in comparison to lotr. The length didn't bother me too much though and I thought that Freeman was great as Bilbo. :hmmm:

Despite these criticisms, I still enjoyed the film. But it didn't live up to its hype or the bar set by lord of the rings. I'm not quite sure how Jackson is going to stretch the Hobbit into 3 films. Personally I'd have thought 2 would have been enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top